Hi Bart,
I don't know the tone of the "feeble brain" comment but I will assume and hope that this is still a friendly discussion. Your view is certainly more popular than mine, but I will stand by mine wholeheartedly.
Why do we even need to talk about par? If the most interesting hole possible on a site is a 480 yard hole with the green place opposite a creek then that's the hole the architect should make. Why do we have to call it a par ___? Some players will reach the green in 2, some will need 3, and others will need 6. For one thing, designing a hole around a specific par is a waste of time and energy because 50 years from now the hole will play completely differently. 100 years ago, Oakmont was considered a par 80 from ~6500 yds. We wouldn't be talking about the course today if Fownes had designed each hole to play to a specific par, adding them all up to 72.
I agree that the demands of the hole and strategy must be taken into account. However, the architect cannot get hung up on exact shot placements of golfers because there is so much variation among players and future distances and playing strategies are uncertain. For this reason, any 480 hole should give the opportunity for good players to reach in 2 and still have some challenge involved. The par is irrelevant. Some 480 holes will be harder than others and have different strategic options but they do not need to be categorized into two distinct hole types, par 4 and par 5.
Anthony